What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
It has been 43 days since the Prime Minister received a letter signed by all Opposition parties expressing support for the Lobular Moon Shot Project, which seeks funding to fight the insidious disease that is lobular breast cancer. Sadly, no response has been received. When the Prime Minister was the Mayor of Greater Manchester, he committed to supporting the Lobular Moon Shot Project. Will he reaffirm that commitment from the Dispatch Box?
You cannot tax your way to prosperity—that is something that I, as a Conservative, believe. Not only do I believe it, but it has been demonstrated time and again in countries across the globe. When this Government first entered office, under the previous Prime Minister, we were told that one of their central focuses would be to go for growth. We all know that Governments cannot conjure growth out of thin air. It is the Government’s job to create the right environment for businesses big and small to drive growth, but this Government spent their first period in office piling cost after cost on to British businesses, including through the national insurance increase and the Employment Rights Act 2025, delivering a regulatory burden that keeps growing. Take pubs, for example, which have been some of the businesses hardest hit by this Government. Since 2023, we have seen nearly 700 pubs close. In my own constituency of Bromley and Biggin Hill, we have been lucky to retain the number of pubs that we have—that is through no inconsiderable effort by myself.
Labour Members are proving once again that they are desperate to talk about the past because they have no plan for the future. Talking about the pubs in my constituency, we have seen a significant decrease in the number of people employed by them. The British Beer & Pub Association estimates that in Bromley and Biggin Hill, we have gone from around 1,150 people employed in pubs in 2023 to around 800 now. That reduction seems to have hit young people the hardest, with the number of 16 to 24-year-olds employed in the industry down by 200—half the figure in 2023. Nationally, we have seen total gross value added from pubs and breweries fall from £47 billion in 2023 to £30.8 billion, and the Government’s tax take fall from £17 billion to £3.2 billion. Higher taxation and regulation are strangling an industry and leaving the Government with less money in the end.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: you tax something to stop it happening, and if you tax jobs, they stop being created.
The hon. Gentleman is being too generous: he plays cricket; I sort of stand there and get hit by the ball. One has to look at taxation in the round, and if we look at the impact of things like the national insurance costs, we can see that it is getting more and more difficult for businesses to survive on the high street. If we want to see economic growth that will strengthen our local communities, strengthen high streets and deliver real opportunities for young people, we need a fundamental change in approach. That fundamentally different approach was outlined perfectly by the Leader of the Opposition and the rest of the shadow Cabinet in Birmingham last week. It is absolutely right that people should be able to leave assets such as family farms, businesses and homes to their direct descendants without being taxed. I warmly welcome our plans to abolish inheritance tax on family homes, rewarding a lifetime of hard work instead of punishing those who have scrimped and saved their whole life. Halving employer national insurance for those aged 21 to 24 is exactly the bold policy we need to get young people back into work. Bill Perera, a McDonald’s franchisee in my constituency, has highlighted the employer national insurance increase as the very reason he is struggling to employ more young people. Halving it will greatly assist the hospitality and leisure businesses that give many people their first job. We know the need to tackle the unsustainable welfare budget, and our savings plan will save £71 billion by doing exactly that. This will allow us to pay for our commitments, such as 3% on defence spending by 2030, while reducing the deficit by £35.5 billion against 2029-30 forecasts. The distinction between the Opposition and the Government could not be clearer. We are setting out a comprehensive plan to get our country back to work, grow the economy and make our communities stronger. The Government have no real plan, and they have floundered in their first few years in office and failed to deliver. The next Conservative Government will deliver. They will deliver a stronger economy and a stronger country.
The hon. Lady is making an excellent case for her leadership campaign. If the Liberal Democrats got into government and put these policies forward, does she believe that the leader of the Liberal Democrats would be there to do it?
In the hon. Lady’s view, what would be the greatest thing to increase growth and business growth in this country? Would it be rejoining the European Union, or would it be halving national insurance contributions by businesses for people aged 18 to 24?
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Government’s pledge to reduce energy bills. When he stood at the election, did he exalt the policy of reducing energy bills by £300 that was put forward by the former Prime Minister? Now that that has been reduced to £45, has he apologised for the bit that he has not delivered on?
Where is the fairness in rightly reducing an earning couple’s tax bill over time so that they can accrue capital and buy a house, only for it to be taxed when they want to leave it to their children?
If it is okay with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am going to approach this debate in two sections. First, let me paint a picture of the reality faced by residents in my constituency. I am blessed to represent a constituency that has everything—yes, rural communities made up of farms large and small, but also towns populated with small and medium-sized independent businesses that hon. Members should visit, such as Simpson’s Sweets and Bulstrodes of Framlingham, Luxmoore of Framsden, Buckle Shipping of Blakenham, the Lion pub of Debenham and Milsoms of Kesgrave. Many of those businesses are family owned and run, and many of those family businesses are made up of parents working with children, nephews, nieces, brothers, sisters and even grandchildren. There is a palpable love and passion among family members working for something that their parents, uncles and grandparents built. There is care for customers and a profound camaraderie among team members that is so hard to replicate. These businesses are not just great places to work; they provide world-beating products and services. Dingley Dell in my constituency sells pork products—[Interruption.] It is a real place. It sells products to the Oberoi Hotel in New Delhi.
I am happy to report that the black Labrador population of Suffolk is thriving. SEERS Medical in Debenham sells medical equipment around the world. Such businesses are invaluable to our economy and society. They not only provide jobs, but pay their taxes, which supports critical public services. We need businesses to boost productivity and to supercharge social mobility. For so many of my local businesses, there is an unquestionable sadness that the current Government seek to penalise them for wanting to keep a business in the family. That cannot be truer for families of farmers who have tended to land for generations, waking up early and dedicating unimaginable hours, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. Now they are told that they have to give that up, because this Prime Minister does not have the temerity to get to grips with the welfare budget and because this Labour regime cannot bring itself to stand up to the civil service unions that want to work four days a week for more pay. Yes, everyone heard that right: this Government want to tax the farmers and the entrepreneurs who work seven days a week so that civil servants in London can work four days a week. The Labour party was founded to protect workers’ rights, but workers in my constituency feel abandoned by this Government. The iniquity of this social and economic contract negates the utter lunacy that seems to govern the Government’s approach to our public finances. I would welcome anyone in this Chamber, or anyone in this country, making a reasonable argument that public spending in its current form, with interest rates at record levels and rising, is sustainable. We have a debt-to-GDP ratio of approximately 100%, with £3 trillion in debt outstanding. We borrowed more than £134 billion last year alone. As a percentage of GDP, we spend as much now as we did at the height of the global financial crisis when we were bailing out banks, and as much as we did during the mid-1970s. By complete coincidence, that was the last time we had a proper left-wing Government like this one in place. How many warnings from the International Monetary Fund do we have to put up with until the Government suddenly take note and realise that they cannot borrow and spend their way out of a crisis? In June 2026, September 2026 and just earlier this week, international economists have said enough is enough.
I will not. The Government have a chance to U-turn. It is a move with which they are now all too familiar. They should show some gumption and cut welfare, grow a backbone and not let the slackers in Whitehall get away with a four-day working week. The Government should cut taxes on the productive half of our economy, allowing businesses and families to pass the homes that they worked and saved for on to their children. The Prime Minister loves a football analogy. This is the biggest open goal he will ever face in his career. He should do the right thing: cut taxes, cut spending and support businesses.
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected any amendments.
Order. There is one person speaking at this moment, and that is the only voice I wish to hear.
Order. Because this is going to be a long debate, I must say that we should be hearing no “you” or “yours”.
I call the Minister.
Unfortunately, the Front Bench speeches went on for quite some time, so Back Benchers will begin with a six-minute speaking limit. I call on the Liberal Democrat spokesperson also to respect the amount of time that we have for the debate.
Order. Ten minutes is a guide, not a target that the hon. Gentleman has to reach.
Order. Back Benchers are on a speaking limit of six minutes.
We have had so many interventions that I am going to have to drop the time limit on Back-Bench speeches to five minutes.
I think that is a no—the right hon. and learned Lady has finished her speech.
I thank the right hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. Given that he is so experienced, I assume that, within protocol, he has also mentioned to the Prime Minister that he was going to raise this matter—or I will accept that as something he will be doing incredibly quickly. The content of Ministers’ speeches and answers are not a matter for the Chair, but those on the Treasury Front Bench will have heard that point; I am sure that they will do everything they can to make sure that it gets to where it should, and that the appropriate action is taken. The right hon. Member can, of course, take more advice from the Clerks if needed.
I am afraid that we have further time constraints. Back Benchers are now on four minutes—and, Mr Jopp, I do not wish to hear you speaking from a sedentary position.
I call the Father of the House.
Order. Sir John Hayes and Sir Julian Lewis, is everybody calm or does anybody need to leave the Chamber? I call Pete Wishart.
Order. I call Shivani Raja.
Order.
Order. Nor will you give way to a Member who has just come into the Chamber.
I call the shadow Home Secretary.
Order. We do not talk about cases where people have just been charged or have not been sentenced, because it is sub judice. I ask the shadow Home Secretary to be incredibly careful with the words he uses in his closing speech.
Order. If somebody is fighting a case, it is still a live case. Can I ask the shadow Home Secretary to revisit his words before he speaks them out loud in the Chamber?
I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Prime Minister for the words about Sir David Amess. We on this side of the House miss him dearly, as do his family. He was a fellow Essex MP and a very good friend to me and to so many across this House, and I know that he is still very much loved by his constituents in Southend. The Prime Minister has had a busy few weeks: tying himself in knots explaining why national security should not come at the expense of social security, and bumbling into a row—still ongoing—about Manchester City. I do not think that his carefully worded answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) will suffice—it does not sound like that one is going away. He also spent the last 48 hours trying to unsay that Russia influenced the 2016 referendum when we all heard him say it. Does he ever get tired of putting his foot in his mouth?
It sounds like the Prime Minister is digging in, but you cannot fight misinformation with misinformation. This is the first time I have ever heard the head of MI5 slap down a Prime Minister for doing Russia’s dirty work for them. Either the Prime Minister knew what he was doing on that podcast—trying to undermine the 2016 referendum—or he opened his mouth on a matter of national security and said the first thing that came into his head. Does the Prime Minister agree with the director general of MI5 that talking up Russian interference was a mistake?
Still digging in—it was not me that MI5 was talking about. The fact is, this Prime Minister will say anything instead of dealing with the tough decisions that only he can take—like on Britain’s energy security. In July, he said that he would approve the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields in the North sea. What is he waiting for? If he had approved them back then, we would have British gas warming British homes this winter. Will he now—[Interruption.] It is true: all the gas from Jackdaw goes on to the British grid. Will he now stop faffing about and approve Rosebank and Jackdaw?
So much time wasting. This is a Government who approve importing oil from Russia and approve new drilling off the Falkland Islands but will not approve new drilling in the North sea. The truth is that the Prime Minister is delaying a decision on energy to avoid a row with his Back Benchers, just as he is avoiding another row on cutting welfare. The Times reports that 2 million people are being paid sickness benefits, and they may not even be sick. Billions of pounds are being paid to people who should not be getting that. The last time a Prime Minister tried to cut welfare, Labour MPs stopped him. They are still chuntering now—look at them. Is the Prime Minister afraid to cut benefits because he does not want a fight with his Back Benchers?
I did not ask the Prime Minister about the Milburn review, but, if he wants to talk about it, I spoke to Alan Milburn and he said that the review was due before the Budget. The Prime Minister has kicked it into the long grass. The Budget is in two weeks. Let me tell the Prime Minister what should be in it: cutting welfare to fund defence. In a BBC interview on Sunday, the Defence Secretary refused to commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030. People used to resign over this. I see that he is not here today—he is still not doing his job. That is the money that Britain needs to keep us safe. Now, the Prime Minister will not even tell us what his plan is for another year. Why will he not announce a date for 3% in this month’s Budget?
A month ago, the Prime Minister was boasting that it was time to engage in problem solving rather than point scoring. It seems that is another thing that he said without thinking. The Prime Minister wants to talk about defence, so let us talk about defence. The Conservatives are the only party that actually has a plan to get to 3% by 2030. I asked him about the Budget, and he said he is meeting President Zelensky. President Zelensky is not writing the Budget; he is. The last two Labour Budgets have been a total disaster. Yesterday I met a beauty salon owner who is struggling with the impact of Labour’s tax rises. She told me that she is dipping into her pension to pay the young people she employs. That is the brutal reality for tens of thousands of small business owners after just two years of Labour. The Prime Minister entered Downing Street promising the biggest change in 40 years. Now Labour MPs are briefing journalists that they hope this Budget “does as little harm as possible”. Is he not too busy appeasing his MPs, excusing his own mistakes and avoiding difficult decisions to give the country the leadership it needs?
The hon. Lady makes some important points. We share a hospital trust. Many of my constituents in Basildon and Billericay go to Broomfield hospital. Some of them go down to Basildon hospital in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock), as well as the Southend hospital in another neighbouring constituency. I want to pick up on that point around contingency planning, because Basildon hospital, which is part of the trust, is particularly bad for corridor care. It is very clear to me that it is a major issue that is really hammering people. I want to make a very brief point about that care.
Thank you for your indulgence, Mr Stuart. A constituent came to me who was handed a second-hand book on grief, with somebody else’s notes in it, after he had just lost his wife. It really struck me that, whether it is corridor care or that almost thoughtlessness, care is actually missing in parts of the Mid and South Essex NHS foundation trust.
The merger of Basildon, Broomfield and Southend hospitals six years ago has turned out to be an abject failure. That is not the fault of the patients, and it is certainly not the fault of the very hard-pressed staff; it is the fault of the management. We have seen endless revolving-door changes of management. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is now time for Clare Panniker, the east of England regional director of the NHS who was the first chief executive of the trust and, indeed, the cheerleader for the merger, to intervene and finally put this problem right once and for all?